Forced evacuations

[sandmann]

[James S]

I think that in this situation it has to be done. I'm not thinking philosophically, and especially not universally. I just believe that in this particular case, with these particular people, that the use of force is requesite to what I would consider a proper government response.

[Caesar]

[Jaybot]

[sandmann]

[James S]

[Brig]

Allow them to stay and aid them:

Should the government foot the bill for aiding people that insist on staying in New Orleans? No.

Allow them to stay but let them live (or die) with their own decision:

The government shouldn't force people out. If people want to stay, they have to accept the consequences. Of course, they have to be aware of the dangers involved in staying behind.

Make them leave:

We keep people from taking dangerous drugs. The government has set a precedent for saving people from themselves. The government has also assumed the role of protecting kids from shitty parents.

Conclusion:

Kids: make the family leave.
Adult: let them stay, but make them aware of the limited availability of help and make them aware of the dangers.

[James S]

But leaving them without aide means that functionally they are without government, which functionally means that they now live in an anarchistic environment, which makes the government appear powerless and impotent. It is much more strategic to force people to leave than to admit such a consequence.

(btw, the mark of the devil is almost upon me ... re: post count)